Post by é·çºIt seems frequently the term "substantially" is used in claims to
imply "about" or "not necessarily exactly", ....
Not "about" without more unless the other language and context
in connection with which "about" may be used conveys some variation on
"mostly" or "for the most part" or "almost exactly" or "to a plainly
considerable degree" or "to a great extent" or "to a significant
extent" etc.
Also, not "not necessarily exactly" without more. Obviously,
a descriptor accurately to the effect that {thisthing} "weighs 4.5 kg"
would not suggest for law related or for other purposes that
{thatthing}, which weighs 5 lbs, is "substantially" the same weight as
{thisthing}, since 5 lbs is only about one-half the weight of 4.5 kg,
whereas presumably it would be accurate to say of {thatthing} that it
is does "not necessarily weigh exactly" 4.5 kg.
Post by é·çºso for example, a person
might use the phrase "substantially circular" to claim something that
is basically circular but it doesn't have to be exactly circular to be
covered by the claim.
That's right. Thus, for example, it is accurate for some
purposes to say, "The earth is round" while also accurate to say that
the earth is only "substantially round" if one uses "round" and if a
synonym for "circular" and recalls that the circumference of the earth
is not an exact circle. OmiGod! - so many "if"s, it almost makes
one's head spin.
Post by é·çºIn other words, "substantially" is used as a
kind of fudge term.
It is a "fudge term" only if one defines it as that based on a
related assumption - evidently made by you for what you presume to be
law related purposes - that there can always be some sort of
indisputably clear bright-line definition. In reality, however, and
hardly only in-for intellectual property related matters, this almost
never is so and one almost certainly would be more than merely
substantially correct if one was to claim that this almost never can
be so.
In addition, while you do not make this explicit, you seem to
presume, also not necessarily correctly, that a "fudge term" is
necessarily - Oh, Dear! - that word "necessarily"! - a matter to be
condemned. But if you do make such an assumption, one hesitates to
think about how you would react to the use of the words "reasonable"
and "reasonably" which are used thousands of times in legislation,
regulations, and judicial rulings.
Post by é·çºThinking about the definition of "substantially", however, is this a
reasonable usage of the word?
Yes, depending on the language being qualified in light of
whatever is their particular context.
Post by é·çºFor example, if you say that something is substantial, it can mean
ample, i.e., a substantial amount of money.
It might connote that in the way you use "ample" in relation
to a sum of money. But even then, one would need to consider full
context. For example, to a wage earner with a total yearly income of
$12K, $500 may be and "ample" sum whereas to a successful hedge fund
manager, whose yearly income may be in the hundreds of millions of
dollars, $500 probably would be trifling and very far from "ample"
sum.
Post by é·çºOr if things are
substantially different from each other, it could mean that they are
really and meaningfully (amply) different from each other.
Yes, too.
Post by é·çºThis seems
to be completely different from the meaning of "for the most part"
or "essentially", as in the claim term "substantially circular", which
implies that it doesn't have to be exactly circular, just circular for
the most part.
Depending on the language being qualified in light of whatever
is the particular context. it can mean substantially or maybe even
exactly the same thing and also might convey a meaning completely
different from "for the most part" although _"substantial"_ would not
connote something like "only trivial" or "merely nominal" or "slightly
preponderantly more" as distinguished from, for example, "notably
more" or the other alternatives first stated above.
Post by é·çºsubstantially/s?b?stan??li/??adverb
1 to a great or significant extent.
2 for the most part; essentially.
Aren't these definitions almost opposite from each other?
No. They are intended to convey and to a significant extent
and so for the most part convey essentially the same notion.
Post by é·çºIf you say
something is "substantially circular", are you implying that it is
"greatly circular" or "circular to a significant extent" ...
... well, "greatly circular" is arguably ungrammatical or at
least non-idiomatic American English usage - but, still, arguably, Yes
...
Post by é·çº... or are you
saying that it's "circular just for the most part"?
(Assumed) Disjunctive Fallacy Alert! Why your assumed
apparently disjunctive "or" instead of something like "and also"? And
also why your seemingly arbitrarily inserted "just" as if you intend
that word to convey a notion like "merely" or "only barely" rather
than, among other reasonably understandable alternatives, "to a
considerable degree"?
Generally speaking, saying that something is "substantially
circular" is pretty close - at least "substantially" close - to saying
that that something is "greatly circular" or "circular to a
significant extent" in a manner such that, depending on the other
language being qualified in light of whatever is the particular
context, a notion of "substantial" is conveyed more so than saying
that that something is "circular just for the most part" if by "just"
you mean to suggest something like "merely" or "only barely".
Other than in connection with comparatively small number of
penal law purposes, these are not substantially difficult notions to
figure out and also are not substantially troublesome to most
attorneys and judges and patent examiners and others who do law work
and also ought not be troublesome much less substantially troublesome
to interested others.
Post by é·çºAnd, for that
matter, when a person uses "substantially" in the claims, absent some
guidance in the specification (which is virtually never done as far as
I know), how do you know which of these meanings he/she is going for?
What do you mean by "virtually"? Isn't that the sort of
"fudge term" you implicitly complain of?
More seriously, one can know what version of the meaning of
"substantial" and of "substantially" - what the person who uses those
qualifiers is going for - by reasonably reading the language used in
full context, unless one has a well founded reason to dispute what, as
used here, "reasonably" means or to quibble unreasonably.
And, Yes - reasonable persons may disagree, including
reasonably disagree and sometimes to a substantial degree, about how
"substantial" and "substantially" is used in particular cases. Which
is why lawyers and patent examiners and other law workers and courts
were invented and continue to exist.